Radu Baltasiu,*
Ovidiana Bulumac,**
Ionut Mavrichi***
* Univ. Bucuresti, CESPE-Academia Româna.
** Univ. Bucuresti, CESPE-Academia Româna.
*** Univ. Bucuresti, CESPE-Academia Româna.
Abstract: The proposed article is a brief sociological analysis that starts with the general plan (the epoch) and reaches to the particular one (the social personality, ecclesiastical relations). In an attempt to better represent the complexity of the subject and the vitality of the Romanian space from which Cantemir is reclaimed, the speech was structured on three main axes: 1. the imperial phenomenon, 2. the personality in terms of socio-cultural construction, and 3. the ecclesiastical relations.
Dimitrie Cantemir brings the first major contribution to the understanding of the imperial phenomenon, so insidious nowadays. We will try to point out some of Cantemir's contributions in this respect by setting the phenomenology of the imperial increase and decrease, starting from the volume "History of the Increases and Decreases in the Ottoman Court".
In the interwar Romanian space of thinking, a new field of research was developed with effervescence, entitled the sociology of the elites. In time, it became crucial for understanding the social realities, and for the construction of the development projections. Significant contributions are those that belong to Dimitrie Gusti ("cultural personality", "social will"), Traian Braileanu ("social artist", "brilliant leader"), Traian Herseni ("spiritual order", "social consciousness"), or Nichifor Crainic ("heroic man"). The concept of cultural personality is central in the analysis of the social infrastructure within a certain area, and Cantemir's passing through the proposed theoretical filter can lead to a better clarification of the role of the personality in history and its overall impact.
In order to obtain a more complete and accurate overall picture, the article will address the issue of Cantemir's ecclesiastical relations, specifically the manner in which the social and religious realities of the epoch concerned him, but also how they can emerge from the social descriptions written. The relevance of this issue is clear from the specific context of identity in which the population lived in, and from the way it was influenced by the religious institutions.
Keywords: empire, cultural personality, social infrastructure, ecclesiastical relations.
O altfel de modernitate ar fiputut sta la baza Europei
Dimitrie Cantemir este, Într-adevar, unul dintre marii gânditori ai Începuturilor Europei Moderne. Alaturi de contemporanii sai din Occident, Dimitrie Cantemir reprezinta participarea activa a spatiului românesc la bazele lumii contemporane dintr-o perspectiva organica, specifica. Dupa cum stim, tensiunile istorice au tinut captiv acest areal, asa Încât propria noastra modernitate, desi genial gândita de Învatati precum Cantemir, nu a generat suprastructura istorica. Ne-am ales cu diverse "camasi de Împrumut", ba chiar cu unele "de forta", precum este, de pilda, cazul dictaturii comuniste. Paginile care urmeaza propun un excurs asupra "Istoriei cresterilor si a descresterilor Curtii Othmannice" (2012).
"Istoria cresterilor si descresterilor" Imperiului Otoman este parte a unui sir de opere de mare adâncime, extraordinar de atent documentate: "Divanul", "Istoria ieroglifica", "Hronicul vechimei româno-moldovlahilor", "Descriptio Moldaviae", "Monarchiarum physica examinatio", "Compendiolum universae logices institutionis" - ca sa citam doar câteva piese din marea lucrare a lui Cantemir la temeliile Europei. Acestea au ca functie fixarea cadrelor cognitive, a definitiilor elementare pentru dezvoltarea societatii si a statului. Discutiile despre bine si rau, credinta, grupari politice si actiune politica, lamurirea originii latine si a unitatii românilor, evolutia si mecanica imperiilor, substratul folcloric al ordinii sociale, toate arata Întelegerea contextuala si unitara a Europei: politica nu se misca În afara geografiei, dupa cum geografia politica este puternic dependenta de traditia istorica; mecanismul politic nu poate fiÎnteles În afara arhitecturii valorilor la care aspira etc. Tocmai aici consta genialitatea lui Cantemir: identificarea precisa a infrastructurii modernitatii si dezbaterea lor aproape simultana, Într-o succesiune temporala care lasa cititorul fara respiratie si, nu În ultimul rând, caracterul original al abordarii.
Revenind la "Istoria Cresterilor si a descresterilor curtii Othmannice", remarcam de la bun Început, În aceasta editie, pluralul: cresteri si descresteri. Întocmai, una dintre cele mai puternice inovatii ale lui Dimitrie Cantemir este evolutia multipla: Înlauntrul cresterii putem avea descresteri, dupa cum În interiorul unei tendinte generale de descrestere, putem avea mai multe episoade de crestere.
Metodologic, actual
Metodologic, iata, Dimitrie Cantemir inaugureaza În cultura româna, dar si În cultura europeana, instrumentul morfologiilor multiple: Într-un ciclu dominant pot avea loc succesiuni secundare care pot fide sensuri evolutive diferite. Cantemir are un plus de modernitate, din acest punct de vedere, fata de teza progresului linear, inaugurata chiar de catre contemporanii sai, sub forma mitului progresului, de pilda de Voltaire. Cantemir nici nu utilizeaza termenul de progres. Pentru el, ceea ce conteaza este sensul fenomenelor, favorabile sau defavorabile statului si poporului. Pentru ca o alta inovatie a lui Cantemir este unitatea de analiza: statul si poporul constituie ecranul pe care se proiecteaza ideea de bine. Desigur, În fundal, actorul suprem este "crestinatatea", cel care l-a si determinat sa se ataseze de curtea noului imperiu ajuns la frontierele noastre: Imperiul Tarist. Prin analiza ciclica asupra istoriei, Cantemir prefigureaza metoda analizei seriale a lui Xenopol, prezentata aproape 200 de ani mai târziu În monumentala "Teoria istoriei" - "La théorie de l'histoire", scrisa În 1908.
În raport cu crestinatatea, Imperiul otoman apare ca unul al "necredinciosilor", iar analiza sa este foarte apropiata de imperativul de astazi al relativismului cultural dinlauntrul analizei sociale. Nu gasim nici un moment judecati de valoare sau consideratii privind inferioritatea fenomenelor dinlauntrul Imperiului Otoman. Dimpotriva, toate evenimentele descrise sunt prezente nu numai cu precizie chirurgicala prin conexiuni, trimiteri la surse - lucrarea are un aparat critic masiv, dar fenomenul imperial otoman este tratat aproape cu empatie. Cantemir se imerseaza În realitatea otomana si, din interiorul acesteia, se raporteaza si la lumea occidentala care tocmai Începea sa-l consume. Este un efort cognitiv considerabil, mai ales daca avem În vedere ca lucrarea lui Cantemir este empatica fata de ordinea otomana, În conditiile În care domnitorul savant se situeaza limpede În perspectiva crestina. Si aceasta este o tripla pozitionare În raport cu fenomenul, pe care doar clasicii sociologiei au reusit-o: analiza obiectiva-detasata, marturisirea paradigmei din care te revendici, empatia fata de fenomenul studiat.
Sesizam, deci, ca rationalizarea cunoasterii la Cantemir ramâne "cuminte", nu intra În teritoriul ideologizat al lui Voltaire. Cantemir nu absolutizeaza stiinta În sine, el ramâne credincios cunoasterii smerite, morale. Iar aceasta profesie de credinta, aceasta plasare paradigmatica neo marturiseste Înca din "Divanul", prima sa lucrare (1698), În care pune bazele epistemologice ale stiintei În modernitate. Pentru Cantemir, scopul "lumii mici", lumea omului, este "potrivirea" cu "lumea mare", adica cu "sufletul cerului". "Lumea mare" este "tiposul" - ideal tipul omenescului, iar viata nu este decât "un labirint" de Încercari pe care omul le trece pentru a fiel Însusi. Fara acest efort continuu, "lumea, maica rautatilor si gazda tâlharilor iaste" (Cantemir 2004 [1698], p. 54). Aceasta pozitionare primara În Întelegerea lumii ne aminteste de "Învataturile" lui Neagoe Basarab (cca 1520), pentru care servirea lui Dumnezeu si a poporului cu credinta marcheaza una dintre cele mai grozave divergente ale evolutiei europene: Europa Occidentala tocmai proclama, prin Machiavelli (circa 1532), ascendenta interesului principelui, al jocului politic, asupra interesului public si a lui Dumnezeu, În opozitie cu eforturile uriase de operationalizare stiintifica, politica, istorica si geopolitica a omeniei, din spatiul românesc.
De altfel, toate aceste Îndemnuri si multe altele descrise În "Divanul" constituie metastructura paradigmatica din perspectiva careia Cantemir analizeaza ciclurile cresterilor si descresterilor otomane. Iata de pilda, interregnul, perioada de cumpana a Imperiului, cea În care imperiul are un lider În Asia si un altul În partea europeana, Începe atunci când institutia sultanului, chiar daca reprezentata de "principi milostivi si foarte generosi", are scaderi morale nemaiÎntâlnite. Interregnul, de altfel, este perioada În care Imperiul nu are "Împarat" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 78 (56, §13)). Referindu-se la Suleiman (1377-1411), acesta avea multe momente În care "se deda tihnei si nu mai socotea ca are ceva de temut din partea sabiei dusmane, abatut sub vicii si supus desfrâului si lacomiei pântecelui ..." (idem, p. 75 (52 §11)).
Cantemir completeaza analiza cu elemente culturale
Miscarea istoriei politice este totdeauna conditionata cultural, acesta fiind un alt mesaj puternic al operei lui Cantemir. Analizele etimologice, comportamentale si studiul comparativ al culturii diferitelor comunitati care ajung În arealul istoric relevant pentru Istoria otomana sunt toate trecute În revista. Câte din studiile geopolitice de astazi au atasate analize etnoantropologice sau psihocomportamentale? Foarte putine, iar studii comparative erudite, nepartinitoare, nici atâta.
Nu În ultimul rând, Cantemir developeaza tipul de imperiu prin infrastructura si natura vectorilor care Îi definesc puterea. Astfel, Imperiul Otoman ne apare la Cantemir structurat În special pe baza unei retele de dependente personale, În sensul bun al cuvântului, cel putin În etapa de crestere. Puterea Imperiului Otoman este a curtii marii familii "Othmanice": retea de Înrudiri, dar si tipar comunitar-etnic. Familia, comunitatea - reteaua dependentelor personale-personalizate si comunitare constituie, asadar, primul pilon al Imperiului Otoman. Apoi, credinta. Turcii au izbândit numai atunci când liderii lor au avut credinta si au guvernat În raport cu aceasta. Imperiul, din acest punct de vedere, este puterea care se impune pe o geografie foarte larga, prin cresterea unei retele comunitare În jurul unui leadership ideal-tipic, Întruchipat de Sultan, de Marele Vizir, de marii preoti si Învatati.
Axele soft(de atractie) si hard (de forta) ale puterii imperiale
În interiorul acestei infrastructuri morale, Cantemir elaboreaza, tot ca un precursor, o discutie pe marginea destinului puterii imperiale, pornind de la distinctia dintre "puterea armelor" si "faima liderului" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 50 (2, §3)). Distribuirea puterii prin balansul dintre cele doua componente ale sale - puterea fortei si puterea de atractie - a devenit o certitudine stiintifica abia În 2004, prin studiul lui Joseph S. Nye Jr, care lansa distinctia dintre softpower si hardpower (Nye 2004).
Astfel, Cantemir Îsi aseaza analiza nu doar În cadrul succesiunii temporale: "Cresterea Curtii Othmanice" - primii sultani, "Interregn" si "Descresterile Curtii Othmane", dar distribuie argumentul În text functie aceste doua axe ale puterii. Spre deosebire de unele analize geopolitice contemporane, Cantemir Întelege ca forta de atractie este, În primul rând, una dintre componentele interne ale ordinii "Curtii Othmannice" si, pe baza acesteia, element de impunere "prin calitate" a puterii imperiale. Trebuie precizat ca, În logica argumentului lui Cantemir, puterea softare importanta precumpanitoare - "linistea În sufletele locuitorilor" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 56 (15, §17)), În special sub forma asigurarii coerentei interne a Imperiului, utilizarea fortei fiind doar una dintre cele trei componente ale cuceririi de noi teritorii si popoare, alaturi de tribut si convertire (idem, p. 56 (16, §16)).
Imperiul a fost Întemeiat Întocmai pe acest triplu echilibru Între componentele softsi hard ale puterii, Însusi sultanul Othman I Întemeietorul punând formarea si expansiunea statului În acord cu Perceptele Coranului, care "«trebuie puse mai presus de domnie si de avutii». De aceea, dupa legea Coranului, el le arata ca «mai Întâi trebuie poftiti Principii Crestinilor, În mod pasnic, la religia muhammedana, iar daca aceia nu vor vrea sa asculte, abia atunci, dupa dreptul divin, ei se cade sa fie proclamati «dusmani ai Adevarului si ai lui Dumnezeu», iar ca asemenea Îndaratnici se cuvin supusi si pedepsiti prin fier, prin foc si prin silnicia bratului." Asadar, trimitând un astfel de edict ... le pune În vedere tuturor Principilor Asiei Mici «ca ei [Principii Crestini] trebuia fie sa primeasca Muhammedanismul, fie sa deie tribut, fie sa se supuna sabiei" (ibid.).
Iata, deci, prima componenta a puterii otomane este Coranul: Îngaduirea dusmanului În limitele aderentei la acesta, prin asimilare sau tolerare. Coranul nu Înseamna pur si simplu supunerea strainilor cât, mai Întâi de toate, respectarea normei religioase de catre turcii Însisi, "mai presus de domnie si de avutii". Toleranta religioasa fata de crestini este factor de revenire important (crestinii care nu se opun prin forta armelor Înaintarii turcilor nu au de ce sa mai fuga din calea acestora). Acestea Îsi au asociate garantarea vietii si proprietatii crestinilor care Înteleg sa nu se opuna Înaintarii turcesti.
A doua componenta este de natura negativa - Înfrânarea de la lacomie. Virtutea conducatorilor otomani este garant al statului.
Cea de-a treia este fixarea În teritoriu a puterii prin constructie institutionala de interes public, militar: hanuri, geamii, bai, magazii etc.
La Încheietura dintre puterea de atractie si cea prin forta se afla marele concept militar al corpului ienicerilor: cei mai sanatosi dintre tinerii crestini convertiti constituie cel mai puternic corp militar al imperiului, cu cea mai avansata instructie. Recunoasterea lor este deplina În imperiu, având libertati economice de care alti militari, sa nu pomenim de civili, nu se bucurau (scutirea de taxe).
Totodata, Întelegem din analizele lui Cantemir ca o buna parte din puterea Imperiului otoman deriva din repolarizarea circuitelor sociale bizantine: mobilitatea sociala a crestinilor este orientata catre sustinerea Imperiului Otoman. Practic, vitalitatea noului imperiu se petrece prin transmutarea vitalitatii vietii sociale din Imperiul Bizantin. Prin asigurarea drumurilor, a comertului prin Înfiintarea de institutii de utilitate publica si, nu În ultimul rând, prin garantarea vietii crestinilor care aleg sa nu lupte: "Orchan [Orhan I, al doilea sultan, 1284-1362], dând dovada de Împarateasca milostivire, le daruie [locuitorilor din Niceea, cetate "sleita dupa un lung asediu"], le daruie si avutiile lor, pe care puteau sa le care cu ei" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 61 (23, §4)).
De altfel, Cantemir arata ca singurul moment semnificativ de ruptura Între Bizant si Otomani este cucerirea Constantinopolului, "prin care Întreaga Crestinatate a fost lipsita de al doilea ochi al sau, si anume cel mai de seama, si a fost adusa pâna În pragul primejdiei sale de pe urma" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 14 (2 [Prefata lui Cantemir]). Cu alte cuvinte, cucerirea otomana nu a fost periculoasa atât prin razboaiele duse, cât prin eficienta Înaintarii Imperiului prin Înglobarea comunitatilor crestine. Aceasta teza, pe care o regasim si la Iorga În "Bizant dupa Bizant", epoca În care domnitorii români au putut sa unifice spiritual tot spatiul Levantului si al Balcanilor sub umbrela ortodoxa, ne arata ca o buna parte din integritatea civilizatiei europene se datoreaza succesiunii mai degraba decât cuceririi Bizantului de catre un Imperiu cu vitalitate mai mare: cel al casei otomanilor. Teza aceasta nu este exploatata de catre Cantemir, dar este suficient punctata pentru a Întelege atât tonul obiectiv al lucrarii lui Cantemir cât si rolul mai larg al Imperiului otoman În raport cu civilizatia europeana: "Imperiul otoman «pagân» era o forma mult mai exterioara decât fusese Imperiul bizantin. Caci, ce fapt, În toate acestea ceea ce staruia era antichitatea elenica, cu cultul zeilor locali În jurul carora se grupa o comunitate În fond libera, cu tot ce se platea amiralului turc ori sultanului si cu toate brutalitatile Întâmplatoare ale ofiterilor si soldatilor În trecere. ... Mai mult sau mai putin, vechile regulamente ale fondatorilor, recomandarile lor precise, cuprinse În tipicurile care nu fusesera date uitarii, erau adevarate constitutii pentru o viata care ramasese cu totul În afara unui stat strain, mai ales În privinta religiei" (Iorga 1972 [1934], p. 64). "Pretutindeni, În Imperiul ramas cu toate acestea atât de asemanator cu ceea ce fusese, se Înaltau biserici noi, În ciuda pretinsei oprelisti din partea turcilor, si chiar manastirile fura restaurate În toata libertatea" (idem, p.70).
În ceea ce priveste exercitarea puterii prin forta (hard power), Cantemir trece În revista câteva aspecte, dovedind si aici cunoasterea unor aspecte de tactica si strategie militara. Astfel, În prima categorie intra tehnica "cuceririi prin iures" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 69 (40, §3) si passim), ceea ce este sinonim cu lovirea adversarului prin surpriza si concentrarea fortelor, exploatarea rapida a breselor, urmata adeseori de consolidarea teritoriului În adâncime. Un alt element semnificativ, legat de proiectia puterii, Îl constituie "stapânirea marilor" (Cantemir 2012 [1714- 1716], p. 73 (47, §16)), completat cu, foarte important, controlul asupra Dunarii, mai exact cu interzicerea accesului românilor la organizarea militara si comerciala (idem, p. 80, (60, §9)).
Decaderea imperiului Începe prin erodarea puterii sale de coeziune interioara (softpower)
Cel de-al doilea asediu al Vienei, de la 1683, este Începutul decaderii Imperiului Otoman. Implicatiile nefavorabile ale atacului abortiv asupra Vienei, considerata punctul gordian al crestinatatii Occidentale - arata Cantemir, aveau sa genereze o reactie În lant din partea puterilor europene carora Imperiul Otoman nu avea cum sa le faca fata (Cantemir 2012 [1714- 1716], p. 360 (315, §103 si passim)). Avem aici discordanta dintre vitalitatea societatii si interesul politic. Teza politicii care devanseaza vitalitatea o face Iorga la 225 de ani dupa Cantemir, În "Hotare si spatii nationale". Iorga arata ca "daca societatea nu ajuta, orice putere de stat e fara folos" (Iorga 1996 [1938], p.17). Se pare ca la Viena, În anul de gratie 1683, Imperiul Otoman atinge un prag În care vitalitatea societatii ramâne În urma vointei politice: nu doar ca Viena nu cade (supravietuieste la limita, totusi), dar unda retragerii armatelor otomane propaga un soc pe care Cantemir Îl va numi "descresteri". Vitalitatea, arata Iorga, este exprimata prin "elasticitatea" adaptarii la marile provocari, de care este responsabila În primul rând elita. Vitalitatea este, deci, expresia excelentei unui popor si tocmai aceasta a fost irosita de campania asupra Vienei. Nu Întâmplator, dovada ca sfortarea era prea mare chiar si pentru corpul de elita al armatei, Marele Vizir Încearca sa substituie ideea otomana ca mobil al cuceririi cu "muntii de aur" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 345 (285, §60)). Efectul asupra coerentei interne a armatei, ulterior a societatii turcesti, este devastator: "Mai marilor ostenilor si Paszilor le luasera curajul Îndaratnicia Vizirului, ca si greutatea asediului, astfel ca nu le mai prea pasa de ceea ce era În folosul Însarcinarilor lor, ci Îndeplineau toate câte li se poruncisera ca niste mercenari ..." (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 349 (293, §70)). Ienicerii si pasii lor, cea mai de temut forta militara a continentului, garantii curtii otomane si deci, ai marii familii, se transformasera Într-o masa "de mercenari" pentru ca nu le mai pasa ... Cum s-a ajuns aici? Prin decaderea infrastructurii interne a puterii. Softpower, mai Înainte de a fiordinea internationala distribuita prin atractie, Înseamna capacitatea imperiului de a se "tine" pe sine, prin propria energie de atractie Între elementele sale. Reducerea administratiei la o problema de bani, cumpararea functiilor, transformarea politicii Într-un joc abstract de rivalitati exclusiv pentru putere au marcat, dupa cum observam, Începutul declinului. Viena a fost momentul În care continuturile puterii nu au facut fata, acestea trebuind sa contina vitalitatea coerentei comunitare otomane, iar nu reteaua rarita de interese personale.
Reificarea guvernarii, reducerea ei la jocuri de putere, are ca axa morala "lacomia" Înaltilor functionari care, la rândul ei, transforma comportamentul armatei, ducând-o "la prapad" (Cantemir 2012 [1714- 1716], p. 348 (291, §68)). Din punct de vedere al gândirii militare, actiunile devin lipsite de prevedere si, desi imperiul avea Înca mari resurse, duce la blocaje logistice care antreneaza pierderea unor batalii majore. Imperiul intrat În disolutie se zbate Între dictatura gloatei, elita absenta si agresivitatea sporita a celorlalte imperii europene care ajung, Între timp, sa aiba interese manifeste la Dunare si la Mediterana. Spiritul de corp al armatei se degradeaza, iar revoltele ienicerilor dau peste cap ierarhia imperiala, detronând viziri si chiar sultani, lichidând Înalti functionari, mai mult sau mai putin corupti. Starea Imperiului de dupa retragerea din fata Vienei este descrisa de Cantemir prin cuvintele sultanului Mehmed al IV-lea, primul din seria descresterii sistemice a Imperiului: "Prin urmare, cu ce drept Îmi atribuiti mie, nevinovatului, cele ce s-au petrecut prin delasarea ostasilor si prin lenevia Capeteniilor, iar, câta vreme, nu vreti ca pacatele voastre sa le numiti pricinile nenorocirilor ... Fapt fara Îndoiala, nu crimele mele, ci acelea ale poporului au stârnit indignarea lui Dumnezeu ...»" (idem, p.394, (381, §193), s.n.). Ceea ce uita sultanul sa marturiseasca ne aminteste tot Cantemir: În timpul grelelor campanii ale armatelor sale acesta era mai tot timpul ... la vânatoare, consfintind, parca, separarea dintre elite si mase, ca Început al prabusirii Imperiului (idem, p. 356 (360, §90)).
Un nou imperium: Imperiul Tarist
Spre finalul lucrarii, Cantemir atrage atentia asupra aparitiei unei alte specii imperiale, Imperiul Tarist. Spre deosebire de Imperiul Otoman, construit În jurul ideii de familie otomana, Imperiul Rus are la baza o idee mult mai abstracta. Este o prima formula politica de imperium (de impunere a puterii) conturata În jurul unei idei cu continut ideologic: "monarhia universala". Turcii Înteleg acest lucru, asa cum o face si Cantemir atunci când ne ofera marturia primului sultan care a dat piept cu pretentia alexandrina a lui Petru cel Mare: "«Dusmanul acela (anume Czarul) nu-si poate schimba gândul În bine. ... [Î]mi dau seama cu usurinta ca el, ca un al doilea Alexandru cel Mare, aspira la monarhia Întregii lumi..." (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 467, 522, §22).
Este limpede ca principele român a avut sensibilitatea necesara pentru a putea recepta observatia lui Ahmed al III-lea, cel care a sperat sa stopeze Înaintarea Rusiei, inclusiv prin urcarea lui Cantemir pe tronul Moldovei.
Istoria a demonstrat ca alegerea lui Cantemir, "de a patimi Întru Hristos", punându-se În slujba Imperiului Tarist, a facut parte dintr-un nou ciclu istoric, caruia Înca Încercam sa-i facem fata si astazi.
Preocupari teologice si relatii ecleziastice cantemirene
Dimitrie Cantemir Îsi are locul sau de cinste alaturi de ceilalti carturari români ai vremii precum Petru Movila si Nicolae Milescu care si-au desfasurat parte din activitatea lor În Rusia. La fel ca acestia, a avut preocupari intelectuale diverse, Între care si preocupari teologice. Primul sau contact cu studiul elevat al teologiei Îl va fiavut cu primul sau dascal. Constantin Cantemir l-a adus În 1688 pentru educatia fiului sau Dimitrie, care avea Înclinatie spre cele ale spiritului, pe Ieremia Cacavela, calugar si preot literat din Creta care avea studii facute În marile centre europene precum Oxford, Leipzig, Viena si Venetia.
Între 1689-1691 completeaza studiile la Constantinopol la Academia greceasca din cartierul constantinopolitan Fanar. Se numara astfel Între elevii "scolii mari" patriarhale din Constantinopol unde a avut ocazia sa fie modelat de profesori cu studii În Occident, Îndeosebi la Padova (Pacurariu 1994).
În 1698 este tiparit la Iasi Divanul sau gâlceava Înteleptului cu lumea sau giudetul sufletului cu trupul prima sa opera, care reprezinta o sinteza a viziunii sale despre existenta expusa sub forma unei controverse Între Întelept si Lume si redactata sub forma dialogului care are antecedent Înca din perioada clasica si cea a antichitatii crestine. Este o buna introducere În educatia morala În spiritul crestinismului rasaritean, pusa sub umbrela dialogului dintre om si lume, materie si spirit, pacat si virtute, tema ce este, În realitate, loc comun al literaturii crestine pornind de la Sf. Pavel pânã la marii autori patristici. Tema disputei dintre suflet si trup este foarte Întâlnitã În Evul Mediu Occidental sau Oriental la autori crestini, precum Grigorie de Nazianz, Boethius, Efrem Sirianul, Bernard de Clairvaux, Hildebert, Peyre d'Aulvergne sau Jacopone da Todi (Cândea 1969).
Cândea (1969) Înscrie demersul lui Dimitrie Cantemir În tendinþele pe care laicii literaþi din Europa de sud-est le manifestau - evoluþia spre o gândire raþional-religioasã, opozabilã gândirii religioase de pânã atunci. Mai mult, Biserica Ortodoxã ca Întreg este reprezentanta unei poziþii antiraþionale, Cantemir contribuind la procesul de unificare a tradiþiei (Ortodoxia) cu raþionalismul, proces pe care Biserica Ortodoxã l-a Împiedicat apãrându-si "doctrina orientalã" de la 1054 Încoace. Înþeleptul lui Cantemir este crestin, dar desprins de "mistica patristicã" si "evoluat" spre raþionalismul protestant (pp. XLVIII-XLIX). El rãmâne ortodox, dar În limitele unei "ortodoxii formale" pentru cã abandoneazã "poziþiile severe ale patristicii, ale teologiei mistice". El ignora scrierile lui Dionisie Areopagitul, Grigorie de Nyssa, Grigorie Palamas "sau ale celorlalþi reprezentanþi ai ortodoxiei În expresia sa radicalã." (Cândea 1969, p. LIV).
Încercarea de a-l poziþiona pe Dimitrie Cantemir În avangarda gândirii umaniste mai precis În procesul "laicizãrii gândirii sud-est-europene" (Cândea 1969, p. XII) care astfel pãtrundea În Þãrile Române, determinã pe V. Cândea sã opereze distincþia artificialã Între raþiune si tradiþie, Între raþionalism si "mistica patristicã" a "ortodoxiei radicale", transformând pe Cantemir Într-un luminãtor al unei Biserici amorþite În lupta ei antiraþionalã de apãrare a doctrinei "orientale". Nu este locul aici sã dezvoltãm contra-argumentul. Ne mãrginim doar la a spune cã lipseste o distincþie fundamentalã Între teologia "misticã" a pãrinþilor filocalici si teologia speculativã a patristicii rãsãritene. Tocmai teologii citaþi asa-zis reprezentanþi ai "ortodoxiei radicale" fac acelasi demers de deschidere spre categoriile filosofice si culturale ale vremii lor: Dionisie - neoplatonism; Grigorie de Nyssa - dezvoltã În categoriile Încrestinate ale filosofiei antice un sistem teologic cãruia anti-raþionalismul este ultimul lucru cu putinþã de imputat; Grigorie Palamas - implicat În dispute de fineþe filosoficã Împotriva metodei tomiste ale unui Varlaam de Calabria etc. Asadar demersul cantemirian are antecedente chiar În Ortodoxia pe care Încerca sã o integreze În sistemul sãu de gândire a realitãþii. La raþiune si logicã au apelat apologeþii crestini, autorii crestini anonimi precum acela al epistolei cãtre Diognet, teologii alexandrini, romani sau antiohieni, În jurul acestora s-au desfãsurat marile controverse cristologice care au cuprins si scindat imperii. La raþiune si logicã face apel si Dimitrie Cantemir În structurarea tezelor sale, iar argumentele le susþine cu citate dintre cele mai variate arãtând pe de o parte vasta sa culturã teologicã si filosoficã, iar pe de altã parte capacitatea de sintezã si integrare. Astfel, Întregul construct teologico-filosofic al Divanului este argumentat cu citate din cele mai diverse surse: vetero sau neo-testamentare; surse patristice precum Mãrgãritarele Sf. Ioan Gurã de Aur, Scara Sf. Ioan Scãrarul, Viaþa si petrecerea Sfinþilor aparþinând Mitropolitului Dosoftei; fragmente liturgice din Minei; Viaþa sfinþilor Varlaam si Ioasaf - celebrul roman atribuit Sf. Ioan Damaschin si care reprezintã o formã Încrestinatã a vieþii lui Budha; clasici greci si romani; literaturã sapienþialã si poeticã orientalã; inclusiv traducerea unei lucrãri aparþinând protestantismului liberal a lui Andrea Wissowatius Stimuli virtutum ac fraena peccatorum etc.
Tot Între izvoarele care au putut avea influenþã asupra operei se mai numãrã si Dioptra lui Filip Monotropos si o lucrare despre judecata sufletului cu trupul atribuitã lui Grigorie Palamas arhiepiscopul Tesalonicului, dar aparþinând lui Michail Choniates (Cândea 1969).
Cantemir se situeazã "Între morala crestinã si etica filozoficã" (Pãcurariu 1994, p. 202). Argumentarea este mai degrabã raþional filosoficã, nu se aratã atras de eremitism sau retragerea din lume ci, dimpotrivã, pune accent deosebit de implicarea În lumea de aici. "Divanul poate ficonsiderat si ca o lucrare de moralã crestinã si de spiritualitate româneascã" (Pãcurariu 1994, p. 202).
Preocupãrile teologice si filosofice le dezvoltã ulterior prin publicarea altor lucrãri. Urmãtoarea carte Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago (Imaginea stiinþei sacre care nu se poate zugrãvi) apare la 1700 În Constantinopol si trateazã probleme de metafizicã si eticã. Abordeazã teme deopotrivã teologice si filosofice precum originea lumii, teoria cunoasterii, problema timpului, a liberului arbitru si a predestinaþiei. "[T]oate problemele pe care le pune cautã sã le rezolve În spiritul doctrinei crestine" (Pãcurariu 1994, p. 203).
O lucrare importantã care poate lãmuri dacã ortodoxia lui Dimitrie Cantemir a fost sau nu doar una formalã, asa cum pretinde V. Cândea, este o scriere târzie intitulatã Loca Obscura in Catechisi, quae ab anonyme authore slaveno idiomate edita et Pervoe ucenie otrokom intitulata est, dilucidata autore Demetrio Cantemirio (Locuri obscure În Catehismul tipãrit În slavoneste de un autor anonim sub titlul Prima Învãþãturã pentru copii, lãmurite de autorul Dimitrie Cantemir). Aceasta a fost provocatã de apariþia unui Catehism pentru copii, nesemnat, aparþinând lui Teofan Procopovici episcop al Pskov-ului, ulterior arhiepiscop de Novgorod (apare si la Râmnic trei ediþii 1726, 1727, 1734) (Pãcurariu 1994). Acesta conþinea multe greseli de doctrinã si metodã de influenþã protestantã. Lucrarea lui Dimitrie Cantemir lãmurea Învãþãturile eronate, situându-se astfel Între puþinii teologi care reacþionau la noua metodã teologicã de influenþã apuseanã intratã În teologia rãsãriteanã prin asa-numitele mãrturisiri de credinþã (ale lui Mitrofan Critopoulos, Petru Movilã, Dositei al Ierusalimului sau Kiril Lukaris).
Pismo knjazja Dimitriia Kantemira k grafu Gavriilu Golovkin (Scrisoarea domnului Dimitrie Cantemir cãtre contele Gavriil Golovkin) reprezintã o conversaþie elevatã, un eseu despre constiinþã fiind una dintre ultimele lucrãri teologice redactate. Giurescu (2007, p. 558) ne informeazã cã În perioada expediþiei În Persia redacteazã si un Catehism persan.
În prelungirea preocupãrilor sale de naturã religioasã, Cantemir publicã În 1722 Cartea sistemei sau despre starea religiunei mahometane "prima lucrare privitoare la doctrina altei religii, scrisã de un român" (Pãcurariu 1994, p. 203).
Toate scrierile teologice menþionate atestã larga sa culturã teologicã si filosoficã, stãpânirea de cunostinþe solide biblice, patristice, liturgice si canonice. "El se situeazã pe poziþia de apãrãtor al doctrinei si al tradiþiilor Bisericii Ortodoxe faþã de Învãþãturile luterane, calvine si catolice (...) lucrãrile menþionate mai sus Îl aseazã pe Dimitrie Cantemir printre premergãtorii teologiei ortodoxe românesti" (Pãcurariu 1994, p. 203).
Erudiþia teologicã, poziþia sa doctrinarã ortodoxã, rangul voievodal l-au pus În situaþia dezvoltãrii unei reþele de relaþii cu lumea ecleziasticã. Încã din perioada domniei tatãlui sãu, Moldova a primit vizita unor Înalþi prelaþi ai Bisericii Ortodoxe precum patriarhii Iacov si Dionisie ai Constantinopolului, Gherasim al Alexandriei, ulterior cea a lui Hrisant Notaras al Ierusalimului (Iorga 2011, p. 83).
În perioada studiilor constantinopolitane intrã În legãturã cu arhiepiscopul Meletie, cunoscut pentru performanþele sale În domeniul matematicilor si literaturii universale. Tot aici are legãturi strânse de prietenie cu alþi ierarhi cultivaþi precum Calinic al II-lea al Constantinopolului, Dositei al II-lea Notara al Ierusalimului, cu marele retor al Bisericii Constantinopolitane Ralachi Cariofil.
În ce priveste relaþiile cu structurile ecleziastice din þarã, ele sunt construite astfel Încât sã sprijine politicile externe ale domnitorului.
În politica sa antiotomanã pune accentul si pe eliberarea religioasã, aspect identificat si de cronicarul anonim (probabil diaconul Nicolae Mustea) "cãci acum si lucrul se Îngrosia cu muscalii, si oamenii Începuse a sã sãmeþi cu nãdejde cã-i va mântui Dumnezeu din mâna vrãjmasului legii crestinesti: turcul" (Pseudo-Nicolae Muste 1874, p. 43 la Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 317).
În Încercarea de a muta orientarea politicã spre Rusia ortodoxã, Dimitrie Cantemir Înþelege importanþa sprijinului Bisericii Ortodoxe si, În consecinþã, duce o politicã ecleziasticã de favorizare. Reuseste astfel sã redobândeascã prin relaþia cu Hrisant Notara, Patriarhul Ierusalimului, o serie de mânãstiri bogate, care fuseserã Închinate locurilor sfinte, precum Bistrita, Tazlau si Probota; scuteste de anumite taxe unele sate apartinând mânastirilor si unele biserici si chinovii; redirectioneaza procente din taxe fiscale catre mânastiri (e.g. Sf. Trei Ierarhi din Iasi); Întareste pamânturi pentru personalul clerical de mir sau mânastiresc (Cernavodeanu 2012).
Alaturarea de Petru al Rusiei are ca mobil "a izbavi poporul crestin de sub jugul greu turcesc". Astfel, În proclamatia catre locuitorii Moldovei face apel la mitropolitul Sucevei, la episcopi si boieri si la restul populatiei (Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 325). Dimitrie Cantemir alatura astfel Biserica planurilor sale geopolitice, Întelegând relatiile de structura care fundamenteaza societatea si pot contribui la mobilizarea ei În momente cruciale precum un conflict armat ce viza eliberarea de sub jugul otoman.
Aceeasi atentie la formele structurii sociale este reprezentata si În eforturile sale de detensionare sociala. Ideea armoniei sociale reprezinta o contrapunere situatiei Îngrijoratoare a certurilor dintre marile familii boieresti care destructurau societatea "au facut voroava singur la toti de obste, ca era slovednic la acestea, dzicându sa fie unii catre altii Întru dragoste... aratând ca ar fifolosu unirii boieresti" (Nicolae Costin 1976, p. 312 la Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 316). Atentia pentru detensionarea sociala realizata prin usurarea În anumite domenii a politicilor fiscale i-a adus bun nume dupa cum atesta si scrisoarea lui Anastasios Condoidi, predicatorul Curtii, catre Patriarhul Hrisant Notara al Ierusalimului, În care Dimitrie Cantemir este motivul pentru care În Moldova "a rasarit un nou soare de dreptate" (Hurmuzaki XIV, p. 84 la Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 316).
Esuarea proiectului sau monarhic prin pierderea de la Stanilesti a reprezentat o grea lovitura pentru Dimitrie Cantemir si pentru ce va fiputut sa fie o domnie ereditara bazata pe premisele crestine ale teopoliticii bizantine.
Cantemir ramâne În memorie si pentru câteva ctitorii mai putin cunoscute: biserica Sf. Împarati Constantin si Elena; "biserica de jos" a mânastirii grecesti din Moscova unde a fost si Înmormântat; doua biserici În satele de pe mosia sa (50 de sate cu 15000 de oameni - Giurescu 2007, p. 556) dupa planurile pe care el Însusi le-a facut; o mânastire la Dimitrovca (Giurescu 2007, p. 161).
Rolul personalitatii cantemirene În infrastructura sociala
Conceptul de infrastructura sociala face referire la "acea expresie imateriala/invizibila specifica comunitatilor umane (fie ele locale, regionale sau nationale), care Înglobeaza o Întreaga suita de continuturi si vectori ce fac posibila reteaua comunitara" (Bulumac 2013, p.31). Cu alte cuvinte, infrastructura devine o "componenta critica a ordinii sociale" care este, prin definitie, un construct cultural, sector de activitate atribuit prin excelenta corpului elitelor. Din aceasta perspectiva, discutia despre rolul social al personalitatii si, În cazul nostru, cel al lui Dimitrie Cantemir devine vitala. Constelatia de personalitati reprezinta "reteaua de noduri" a unei comunitati care distribuie coerenta si functionalitate unitatii sociale, atât pe plan politico-administrativ, cât si economic sau socio-cultural (idem, p. 33).
Definitia weberiana a ordinii sociale introduce o dimensiune importanta În analiza rolului social al personalitatii, si anume "maximele identificabile" În functie de care conduita actorului social capata continutul numit ordine (Weber, 1978, p. 31). Din aceasta perspectiva, ceea ce intereseaza este "stabilirea pre-judecatilor, a rationamentelor (categorii), a imaginilor (reprezentari) si perceptiilor În virtutea carora actorii sociali Înteleg si modifica (eco)sistemul social" (Bulumac 2013, p. 31). Personalitatea lui Dimitrie Cantemir poate fianalizata Întocmai În virtutea acestor maxime, mai exact prin "patrie" si "crestinatate", dimensiuni marturisite atât prin activitatea sa, cât si prin opera lasata mostenire. Maximele, daca sunt calibrate În acord cu comunitatea de limba, de religie si de cultura din care se revendica personalitatea, pot ajuta nu numai la mentinerea circulatiei valorilor, a ideilor, a traditiilor si a lucrurilor relevante, dar pot conferi si solutii În fata provocarilor ivite. Data fiind natura identitara a dimensiunilor adoptate de personalitatea cantemireana, putem afirma faptul ca, În ciuda unor esecuri politice, Dimitrie Cantemir a Încercat fara Încetare crearea unui cadru propice dezvoltarii comunitatii de care apartine, precum si redresarii infrastructurii sale sociale. Iar adoptarea unor valori ultime de catre Cantemir precum patria si spiritualitatea ortodoxa nu Înseamna altceva decât constientizarea misiunii care determina, la rândul sau, taria aspiratiilor cantemirene cu valoare colectiva.
Personalitatea sociala reprezinta un element central În paradigma gustiana a sociologiei militans, componenta a institutionalizarii unei "pedagogiei nationale" a creatiei si formarii personalitatii, cu principii desprinse din etica si politica. Pentru Dimitrie Gusti, ideea de personalitate sociala era echivalenta cu cea de fruntas, sef si elita. "Numim aceasta fiinta ideala, data Însa omului În virtualitatile lui existentiale: personalitate. Idealul etic este, deci, personalitatea creatoare de valoare culturala care ni se Înfatiseaza ca unitate armonica a iubirii de sine, a simpatiei si a religiozitatii, cu o vointa cât mai larga, capabila adica sa aleaga scopurile cele mai Înalte si sa mânuiasca mijloacele cele mai potrivite pentru realizarea lor" (Gusti, 1940, p. 19). Ce exemplu poate fimai bun decât Dimitrie Cantemir În cazul personalitatii creatoare de valoare culturala? Mostenirea lasata peste veacuri, desi insuficient recuperata În zilele noastre, reprezinta manifestarea unui crez personal foarte puternic, care a generat o serie Întreaga de opere originale, unele chiar controversate sau gândite În raspar fata de paradigma dominanta din Occident, dar si fata de unele teorii din spatiul rusesc (Ciobanu 1925; vezi de asemenea sectiunea de mai sus intitulata Metodologic actual). Carturarul Cantemir Întelege faptul ca politica de stat si diplomatia trebuiesc În mod necesar completate cu cunoastere, pentru a putea ridica dependenta Tarilor Române de factorii politici externi si pentru a putea creste gradul de civilizatie si Înlesnire a muncii românilor de rând. Cu alte cuvinte, Cantemir a Înteles ca are o misiune, pe care a Încercat sa si-o asume integral.
Pentru a Întelege mecanismul social si aportul personalitatii la infrastructura sociala si materiala a unei comunitati, vom utiliza mai departe un instrument teoretic, si anume ideal tipul personalitatii sociale sintetizat prin cinci trasaturi definitorii (Bulumac 2013).
Traian Braileanu, unul din cei mai neglijati gânditori din sociologia româneasca, atât În perioada comunista cât si În cea post-decembrista, contureaza teoria omului mare sau a conducatorului genial, remarcat Îndeosebi În vremuri de criza. Prin intermediul acestei teorii atingem prima trasatura a personalitatii sociale: societatea umana reprezinta un construct mental pus În practica de catre "artistul social" sau "conducatorul genial" (Braileanu, 1936), pornind de la posibilitate si finalizând prin implementarea În conformitate cu propria viziune. Cu alte cuvinte, personalitatea sociala Încearca sa puna În acord ideea (viziunea) cu o functie sociala bine determinata, actiune ancorata În mod necesar În sentimentul nostratic de ambele parti. Acesta este locul identificat de Traian Herseni În lucrarea sa de doctorat (1935) ca fiind baza constiintei sociale, ceea ce face posibila convietuirea, ordinea sufleteasca generata de constiinta sociala cu manifestari În spatiul cultural, economic, politic etc. (Herseni, 1935). În cazul lui Cantemir, accesul la marea cultura universala a avut loc odata cu trimiterea sa la Constantinopol, de la vârsta de 15 ani, si cu Înscrierea la Academia Patriarhiei, unde a aprofundat inclusiv stiinte precum matematica, topografia, arheologia, sau geografia. Apoi are sansa de a fi5 ani de zile reprezentantul În fata Portii a lui Antioh Cantemir (ajuns pe tronul Moldovei În 1695), timp În care "si-a rafinat atât mijloacele de persuasiune politica, desavârsindu-si cunostintele În materie de Întelegere a cailor de acces spre putere, cât si cunostintele filosofice, lingvistice, artistice" (Taralunga 2004, p. 30). Acesta este Începutul omului de cultura Dimitrie Cantemir, cel care lasa românitatii o serie Întreaga de volume pretioase. Mai târziu, dupa alianta cu Petru cel Mare si pierderea bataliei de la Stanilesti din 1711, Cantemir se retrage Împreuna cu armatele rusesti la Moscova. "Aici, În Rusia, el Îsi scrie cele mai Însemnate opere, din cari primul loc Îl ocupa acelea, cari se refera la tara lui" (Ciobanu 1925, p. 2).
Cea de-a doua trãsãturã a personalitãþii sociale face referire la "puterea" suficient de consistentã Încât sã refacã sau sã transforme infrastructura socialã În condiþii de crizã. Cu alte cuvinte, conducãtorul (Brãileanu, 1940, pp. 25-26, 40, 102-103) este persoana care alege sã rãspundã unor urgenþe de substanþã ale istoriei puse În faþa comunitãþii din care face parte. Interesant este cã Brãileanu alege sã utilizeze condiþionalului optativ "ar ficapabil sã...", ceea ce ne aratã faptul cã logica dezvoltãrii infrastructurii sociale stã, În mod firesc, sub semnul complexitãþii vieþii sociale, ce nu poate fisupusã În Întregime unei legi sociologice. Urgenþele vremii din timpul lui Cantemir reprezintã pe de o parte contextul geopolitic Încâlcit, precum si reþeaua de interese personale, care duce la apariþia regimurilor fanariote În Þãrile Române. Înþelegând aceste condiþii de crizã si În virtutea dorinþei sale de a reface coerenþa social-politicã În spaþiul românesc, Cantemir Îsi asumã o misiune "de suflet", aceea de raportare la un ideal funcþional În trecut: "eliberarea þãrii de sub dominaþia otomanã, revenirea ei la prerogativele pe care le avea pe vremea marelui atefan" (Þarãlungã 2004, 32).
Asadar, aici avem douã paliere constitutive: cel al personalitãþii sociale si cel al comunitãþii, legate În mod direct prin componenta acþionalã determinatã de douã ingrediente: voinþa socialã si (pre)viziunea (cea de-a treia trãsãturã a personalitãþii sociale). Voinþa socialã reprezintã "esenþa unitãþii sociale" (Gusti, 1969, p. 27), fiind capabilã sã transforme cadrele În manifestãri, deci sã actualizeze stocul social, cultural si economic al unei comunitãþi. Pe de altã parte, viziunea reprezintã acea stare mentalã proiectatã În unitãþi de timp, spaþiu si cauzalitate (Bernea, 2005), În care creativitatea/ingineria socialã depãseste graniþele inteligenþei individuale. În acest caz, interesant este faptul cã toatã deschiderea În faþa marii culturi de care a beneficiat nu l-a "universalizat" pe Cantemir, ci, dimpotrivã, l-a determinat sã Îsi dezvolte o voinþã socialã si o viziune Îndrãzneþe, direct legate de cele douã maxime mai sus menþionate, patrie si crestinãtate: Dimitrie Cantemir Începe "sã viseze la o domnie a sa asupra ambelor þãri române" (Þarãlungã 2004, p. 31). Cu toate acestea, ambiþia sa nu duce la rezultatul dorit, Cantemir pierzând bãtãlia politicã În faþa experimentatului domn român, Constantin Brâncoveanu, esec descris de acesta În Istoria ieroglificã.
Cea de-a patra trãsãturã a personalitãþii sociale implicã iniþierea de cãtre aceasta a unui circuit superior al valorilor pe lângã facilitarea interiorizãrii acestora de cãtre unitatea socialã. Cu alte cuvinte, proiectarea si diseminarea conþinuturilor spirituale duce, prin implicarea personalitãþii, la depãsirea crizei prin Întãrirea infrastructurii sociale. În cazul lui Dimitrie Cantemir, aceastã trãsãturã a fost În mod repetat Întrunitã, dar nu pe plan politic, acolo unde a cunoscut Înfrângerea, ci pe plan spiritual si cultural. Prin opera scrisã a reusit sã influenþeze soarta multor momente cheie din istorie, la mult timp dupã moartea sa. Un astfel de exemplu poate ficonsiderat volumul sãu Hronicul, care a devenit carte de cãpãtâi a membrilor acolii Ardelene În lupta acestora pentru drepturile naþionale ale românilor. "Ceea ce pierduse cu sabia, Dimitrie Cantemir a câstigat cu condeiul" (Þarãlungã 2004, 34).
Mai departe, apelãm la teoria "omului eroic" a lui Nichifor Crainic. În concepþia sa, o elitã nu Îsi poate justifica existenþa În afara criteriului moral, gândire care are În centru credinþa si dragostea de aproapele. Pentru Crainic, prima caracteristicã a omului eroic face referire la absenþa manifestãrii izolate, pentru cã el aparþine comunitãþii cu care se identificã, iar idealul sãu este subsumat traiectoriei colective. Aceasta este o misiune necondiþionatã, atribuitã de corpul social pe care omul eroic si-l asumã, având ca finalitate ridicarea comunitãþii. "E adevãrat cã lava se exprimã prin vulcani si eroismul se Încarneazã În insii exemplari ai omenirii; dar nu e mai puþin adevãrat cã duhul eroic poate ajunge bun comun al unei generaþii sau al unui popor Întreg" (Crainic, 1937, p. 28) - cel de-al cincilea atribut al personalitãþii sociale. Criteriul moral a reprezentat unul din stâlpii de rezistenþã În opera lui Cantemir, domnitorul fiind primul care, În filosofia moralã autohtonã, realizeazã o diferenþã Între constiinþã si constiinþã moralã, diferenþã enunþatã iniþial În Scrisoarea despre constiinþã (Dumitrescu 2002 apud Volumul Conferinþei Internaþionale 2012, p. 95). Astfel, Cantemir ajunge la concluzia conform cãreia "oamenii, În lipsa educaþiei, pot cãpãta moravuri rele" (idem). Cu alte cuvinte, cãrturarul, prin condei, Încearcã rãspândirea criteriului moral În virtutea ridicãrii comunitãþii din care se revendicã.
Diferenþa principalã dintre conceptul de elitã si cel de personalitate este datã de alegerea constantã a celei din urmã de a tinde cãtre Împlinirea maximalã a personalitãþii prin orientarea dupã cele mai Înalte valori. Asemenea personalitãþi/constelaþie de personalitãþi sociale reusesc sã aducã o unitate social-economicã În maximul lor de potenþial, atât În timpul vieþii cât si prin mostenirea lãsatã comunitãþii. În cazul personalitãþii cantemirene, mostenirea lãsatã reprezintã o suitã Întreagã de contribuþii, În cele mai variate domenii: de la conturarea folcloristicii si etnografiei românesti la enunþarea unor teorii geoculturale si geopolitice În privinþa fenomenului imperial, de la influenþa pe plan muzical la idei de economie politicã, de la asumarea discuþiei unor teme sensibile si dificile În teologie la analiza normelor de conduitã si moralã, etc. (vezi Volumul Conferinþei Internaþionale 2012). În acest caz, În urma analizei activitãþii si operei lui Dimitrie Cantemir, reiese Încã o trãsãturã a personalitãþii cantemirene, În plus faþã de instrumentul teoretic al ideal-tipului (axat pe numai 5 dimensiuni): dimensiunea sa enciclopedicã. În felul acesta Cantemir este printre initiatorii cunoasterii contextelor semnificative, unul dintre scopurile cunoasterii enciclopediste. Este ceea ce Albert Hirschman numea Întelegerea complexitatii realitatii sociale. Asa ajunge Cantemir sa Înteleaga momentul declinului Imperiului Otoman, sa prevada aparitia noilor configuratii de putere În Europa Îndreptate Împotriva Portii (Taralunga, 2004, p. 478) si sa Îsi orienteze Întreaga activitate Înspre includerea "patriei" sale Înlauntrul acelor sisteme de aliante (idem, p. 32).
Bibliografie
Bernea, E., (2005), Spatiu, timp si cauzalitate la poporul roman, Ed. Humanitas, Bucuresti.
Braileanu, T., (1936), Artisti si artizani. În Însemnari sociologice, Aprilie. II(1).
Braileanu, T., (1940), Sociologia si Arta Guvernarii. În: Articole Politice (ed. II-a), Ed. Cartea Româneasca, Bucuresti.
Bulumac, Ovidiana, (2013), Infrastructura si societate. Considerente teoretice si studii de caz, Universitatea din Bucuresti.
Cantemir, Dimitrie, 2004 [1698], Divanul sau Gâlceava Înteleptului cu lumea, sau Giudetul sufletului cu trupul. Prinde truda si de osteninta iubirea a lui Ioan Dimitrie Constantin-Voievod ..., Ed. Litera International, Bucuresti, Chisinau.
Cantemir, Dimitrie, 2012 [1714-1716], Istoria Cresterilor si a Descresterilor Curtii Othman[n]ice. De la primul Început al neamului, adusa pâna În vremurile noastre, În trei carti, vol. I si II, prefata Acad. Virgil Cândea, trad. româneasca si indice de Dan Slusanschi, ed. a II-a revizuita, Paideia.
Cândea, V., (1969), "Studiu Introductiv". În Cantemir, D. Divanul. Editura pentru literatura, Bucuresti.
Cernavodeanu, P., (2012), Vremea Cantemirestilor. În Istoria Românilor. (vol. V) O Epoca de Înnoiri În spirit european (1601- 1711/1716). Ed. Enciclopedica, Bucuresti.
Ciobanu, Stefan, (1925), Dimitrie Cantemir În Rusia, Memoriile Sectiunii Literare, Seria III, Tomul II, MEM. 5, Cultura Nationala, Bucuresti.
Crainic, N., (1937), Ortodoxie si etnocratie. Ed. Cugetarea, Bucuresti.
Dumitrescu, P., (2002), Studii de filosofie româneasca, Tipo Moldova, Iasi.
Giurescu, C., (2007), Istoria Românilor (vol. III). Bic All, Bucuresti.
Gusti, D., (1940), Problema sociologiei. Trei comunicari. În Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile sectiunii istorice, seria III, tom XXII, Imprimeria Nationala.
Gusti, D., (1969), Opere, vol. II, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti.
Herseni, T., (1935), Realitatea sociala. Încercare de ontologie regionala. Institutul Social Român, Bucuresti.
Iorga, N., (2011), Istoria Bisericii Românesti si a vietii religioase a românilor (vol. II). Saeculum I. O, Bucuresti.
Iorga, Nicolae, 1972 [1934], Bizant dupa Bizant, Ed. Enciclopedica Româna, Bucuresti.
Iorga, Nicolae, 1996 [1938], Hotare si spatii nationale. Afirmarea vitalitatii românesti, studiu introductiv de Mihai Ungheanu, Ed. Porto Franco, Galati.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., "SoftPower, Hard Power and Leadership", În Harvard.edu, 27 oct. 2006, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/netgov/files/talks/docs/11_06_06_sem inar_Nye_HP_SP_Leadership.pdf
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., (2004), "The Decline of America's SoftPower", Foreign Affairs, mai-iun.
Pacurariu, M., (1994), Istoria Bisericii Ortodoxe Române (vol. II), Ed. Institutului Biblic si de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Bucuresti.
Taralunga, Ecaterina, (2004), Dimitrie Cantemir. Contributii la un portret, Ed. Litera International, Bucuresti-Chisinau.
Universitatea Crestina "Dimitrie Cantemir. Volumul Conferintei Internationale "Dimensiunea enciclopedica si universala a operei lui Dimitrie Cantemir", 2012, Ed. Pro Universitaria, supliment la revista Cogito, nr.3/septembrie 2012, disponibila la adresa de internet http://deodc.ucdc.ro/editia2/volumul-conferintei-6nov.final.pdf
Weber, M., (1978), Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, vol. I and II, University of California Press.
DIMITRIE CANTEMIR - A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Radu Baltasiu,*
Ovidiana Bulumac,**
Ionut Mavrichi***
* University of Bucharest, CESPE-The Romanian Academy.
** University of Bucharest, CESPE-The Romanian Academy.
*** University of Bucharest, CESPE-The Romanian Academy.
Abstract: The proposed article is a brief sociological analysis that starts with the general plan (the epoch) and reaches to the particular one (the social personality, ecclesiastical relations). In an attempt to better represent the complexity of the subject and the vitality of the Romanian space from which Cantemir is reclaimed, the speech was structured on three main axes: 1. the imperial phenomenon, 2. the personality in terms of socio-cultural construction, and 3. the ecclesiastical relations.
Dimitrie Cantemir brings the first major contribution to the understanding of the imperial phenomenon, so insidious nowadays. We will try to point out some of Cantemir's contributions in this respect by setting the phenomenology of the imperial increase and decrease, starting from the volume "History of the Increases and Decreases in the Ottoman Court".
In the interwar Romanian space of thinking, a new field of research was developed with effervescence, entitled the sociology of the elites. In time, it became crucial for understanding the social realities, and for the construction of the development projections. Significant contributions are those that belong to Dimitrie Gusti ("cultural personality", "social will"), Traian Braileanu ("social artist", "brilliant leader"), Traian Herseni ("spiritual order", "social consciousness"), or Nichifor Crainic ("heroic man"). The concept of cultural personality is central in the analysis of the social infrastructure within a certain area, and Cantemir's passing through the proposed theoretical filter can lead to a better clarification of the role of the personality in history and its overall impact.
In order to obtain a more complete and accurate overall picture, the article will address the issue of Cantemir's ecclesiastical relations, specifically the manner in which the social and religious realities of the epoch concerned him, but also how they can emerge from the social descriptions written. The relevance of this issue is clear from the specific context of identity in which the population lived in, and from the way it was influenced by the religious institutions.
Keyterms: empire, cultural personality, social infrastructure, ecclesiastical relations.
The Modernity Underlying the European Space Could Have Been Different
Doubtless, Dimitrie Cantemir is one of the greatest thinkers of the early European modernity. Together with other Western contemporaries, Dimitrie Cantemir represents the active role the Romanian space played in laying the foundations of the contemporary world from an organic, specific perspective. As we know, the historical tensions held this area captive in such a way that our own modernity, although brilliantly thought of by scholars like Cantemir, did not generate a historical superstructure. In exchange, we ended up locked out of "Heaven", sometimes even in a straitjacket - the latter would be the case of the communist dictatorship. The following pages represent an overview of "History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire" (2012) that is part of a series of a great depth, extraordinarily documented: "The Divan", "The Hieroglyphic History", "The Chronicle of the Durability of the Romanians-Moldavians- VAllachians", "Descriptio Moldaviae", "Monarchiarum physica examinatio", "Compendiolum universae logices institutionis" - to cite only a few examples of Cantemir's industrious work on the European foundations. These were bound to settle the cognitive frames of a new era, as well as of the elementary definitions for the societal and state development. The discussions about good and evil, faith, political groups and actions, the clarification of the Romanian Latin origins and unity, the evolution and dynamics of the Empires, the somewhat traditional substrate underlying the visible social order - all these show a holistic and contextualized view of the Old Continent: there are no politics outside a given geographical area, but the political geography is strongly dependent on historical tradition; the political mechanism cannot be understood outside the dominant set of values etc. This is exactly the point where Cantemir's genius comes to surface: the precise identification of the main infrastructure that shapes the modernity and the almost concurrent discussion on them, in a breath-taking temporal sequence and, last but not least, the original approach towards the problem.
Regarding the title of this edition - "The Historiy of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Court" - the usage of plurals is easily noticeable: successes and failures. This detail points to one of Cantemir's most brilliant innovations, the multiple evolution: the failures could be easily included in an overall cycle of success, as well as a general tendency towards failure and decrease can include some success and growth periods.
Up-to-date methodology
Methodologically speaking, Dimitrie Cantemir is the pioneer of the multiple morphologies instrument, both in the Romanian and European culture. In other words, multiple secondary sequences of different evolutionary trajectories can take place in a dominant cycle. From this standpoint, Cantemir has a plus of modernity than the linear progress theory, coined by his own contemporaries (e.g. Voltaire) in the form of the myth of progress. Cantemir does not even use the term "progress". For him, what matters is the direction of the major phenomena, auspicious or detrimental for the state and for its people. All this is possible due to another of Cantemir's innovations, the unit of analysis: the state and the nation are the screens on which the idea of "goodwill" is constantly being projected. Of course, in the backstage, the main actor is the "Christianity", the one that also determined him to resonate with the new empire that had just reached our borders: the Tsardom of Russia. Using the cyclic analysis of the historical periods, Cantemir foreshadows Xenopol's serial analysis method, which was presented nearly 200 years later in the innovative "La théorie de l'histoire", in 1908.
Although in relation to Christianity the Ottoman Empire is considered to represent the homeland of the unfaithful ones, Cantemir's analysis is closely linked to the modern imperatives of cultural relativism inside the field of social research. There are no value judgments or thoughts on a presupposed inferiority of the phenomena inside the borders of the Ottoman Empire. On the contrary, all the events described in his work are precisely contextualized - we even find many references to other authors and works and a massive critical apparatus, and, at the same time, the Ottoman phenomenon is almost empathically presented. Cantemir carefully immerses himself in the Ottoman reality and relates himself to the new and questionable Western world right from the core of this Oriental scenery. This is a huge cognitive effort, especially if we bear in mind that Cantemir's wonderful book is empathic to the Ottoman social order, given the fact that the prodigious ruler clearly places himself on the Christian side of the world. This is a triple perspective in relation to the object of study and only the classics of sociology were capable of such a cognitive effort: the objective analysis, the avowal of the paradigm you place yourself in, and the empathy towards the investigated phenomenon.
Therefore, we can grasp the idea that Cantemir does not step into Voltaire's strongly ideologized territory. Cantemir does not absolutize the science per se; rather, he remains faithful to the reverent, moral knowledge. This particular view, this paradigmatic view is being shaped since his very first work ("The Divan", 1698), in which he builds the epistemological foundations of the science in a modern context. For him, the purpose of the "small world", the individual universe, is to be in congruity with the "big world", which is the "soul of the sky". The "big world" is the ideal type of the humanity and life is only a "labyrinth" of attempts and test that one has to pass in order to become him/herself. Without this perpetual effort, the world turns into the "mother of wickedness and the host of evil" (Cantemir 2004 [1698], p. 54). This primary perspective of the world resembles to some extent Neagoe Basarab's "Teachings" towards his son (approximately 1520). This faithful ministration of God and his people marks one of the greatest divergences in the whole European evolutionary axis: the Western Europe had just proclaimed, through the writings of Machiavelli ("The Prince", approximately 1532), the priority of the royal interest and political (rational) games over the collective good and over God's will - this came as the (meta)physical counter part of the efforts towards scientific, political, historical and geopolitical operationalization of the humaneness in the Romanian space.
Moreover, all these incentives and many other ones, written in "The Divan", constitute the paradigmatic meta-structure alongside which Cantemir analyses the cycles of Ottoman growths and failures. For example, the interregnum was one of the most difficult periods in the entire history of the empire. The Ottomans had a leader in Asia and one in the European part, so none of them were able to represent the Sultan (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p.78 (56, §13)). Although they were "good, generous people", their moral habits were highly questionable. Regarding Suleiman (1377-1411), it is said that he had many periods during which he "would give in to laziness and did not care if there were any threats from the empire's enemies. He became a vicious person and debauchery and promiscuity undertook all of his life" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 75 (52 §11)).
Cantemir rounds his analysis with cultural elements. Another vibrant message from Cantemir's book is that the movement of the political history is always culturally determined and influenced. He always looks upon the etymological and behavioral analysis, as well as comparative studies of the culture inside different communities that became parts of the relevant physical space for the Ottoman history. How many of today's geopolitical studies have attached a thorough ethnoanthropological or psycho-behavioral analysis, let alone unbiased, well documented comparative studies? Very few indeed.
Last but not least, Cantemir depicts the empire through the type of the infrastructure that defines its internal power relations. Therefore, the Ottoman Empire appears to be structured especially on a positive personal dependences network, at least in its early phases. The power of the Ottoman Empire belongs to the great Ottoman imperial Court, which relies on kinship, community and ethnic patterns. The family, the community - the personal and personalized dependences network and the community constitute, therefore, the basis of the Ottoman Empire. Then, their faith. The Turks prevailed only when their leader kept the faith and ruled accordingly to it. From this point of view, the empire is the power that takes over a very large geographical area, mostly throughout the development of a community network that has at its very core an ideal typical leadership, embodied in the form of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier and the great priests and intellectuals of the time.
The Soft(attraction) and Hard (force) Axes of the Imperial Power
Once again as a pioneer, Cantemir questions the destiny of the imperial power within this moral infrastructure. His starting point stands on the distinction between "gun power" and "leader fame" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 50 (2, §3)). The distribution of power through its two components - the power of force and the power of attraction - became a scientific certainty only in 2004, through the study conducted by Joseph S. Nye Jr., who coined the distinction between softpower and hard power (Nye 2004).
This way, Cantemir not only uses the temporal succession in analytical model: "the Growth of the Ottoman Court" - the first Sultans, the "interregnum" and "the abatements of the Ottoman Empire", but also takes into account these two power axis when he constructs his arguments. Unlike some contemporary geopolitics, Cantemir understands that the attraction power can be mainly found among the internal components of the organization of the Ottoman imperial Court and, based on this, an element of qualitative institutionalization of the imperial power. It must be said that, in the key logic of Cantemir's argument, the softpower is of an extraordinary importance, being directly linked to the "peace in the souls of the Ottoman Empire inhabitants" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 56 (15, §17)), being held responsible especially for the internal coherence of the Empire, given the fact that the physical power was only one the three components of the conquest of new territories and nations - the other two are the tribute and the conversion (idem, p. 56 (16, §16)).
The Empire was established right on this three-part equilibrium between the softand hard components of the power. A great example of this is the making of the Empire itself - the Sultan Othman I made sure to respect the Koran, the holy book of the Muslim world, which was supposed to be "above all desires to rule and to gain". This is the reason why, following the Koranic percepts, he says that "first, we have to peacefully invite the Christian Princes into the Mahommedan religion, and if they will not listen, only then, due to our divine right, they can be proclaimed «enemies of the Truth and God" and have to be punished «through the power of the sword and fire». Therefore, sending out an edict like this, he tells every Prince in Asia Minor «that they [the Christian Princes] needed either to embrace the Muslim religion, to pay tribute, or to go to war» (ibid.).
This shows that the first component of the Ottoman power is the Koran itself: the allowance of the enemy as long as he adheres to it, either through assimilation or through tolerance. The Koran does not only mean the obedience of the stranger - above all, it implies the obedience from Turks themselves, "above all desires to rule and gain". Religious tolerance towards Christians is an important recovery factor (the Christians who do not actively oppose the advance of the Ottoman troops have no reason to run from them). These have associated the guarantee for life and property for the Christians who choose not to resist the Ottoman headway.
The second ingredient has a rather negative nature - the resistance to greed. The virtue of the Ottoman rulers is a guarantee for the well-being of the state and its people.
The third is the physical embodiment in territory of the power, through the means of institutional construction of buildings serving a particular public or military interest: inns, mosques, baths, warehouses etc.
The joint between the attraction power and the force power is the great military concept of the janissary divisions: the healthiest of the converted Christians youngsters are constituted in the most powerful military corpus of the Empire, with the most advanced forms of instruction. They are completely recognized throughout the Empire, having certain economic rights that weren't granted to any other social or military category.
Moreover, we understand from Cantemir's analysis that a great part of the power of the Ottoman Empire resides in the repolarization of the byzantine social circuits: the social mobility of the Christians is oriented towards supporting the Empire. Practically, the vitality of the new empire comes into being by translating the vitality of the social life from the Byzantine Empire. Ensuring the road safety, the commercial life through the establishment of public institutions and, last but not least, through the life-guarantee for the Christians that chose not to fight: "Orchan [Orhan I, the second Sultan, 1284 - 1362], showing a heavenly, mercy-full goodwill, gives [the inhabitants of Nicaea, a citadel "outworn after a very long siege"], grants them back also the right to their possessions" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 61 (23, §4)).
Otherwise, Cantemir shows that the only significant moment of rupture between Byzantine and Ottoman Empires is the conquest of Constantinople, "through which the Christianity itself had been withdrawn its second eye, the most important one, and had been put in great danger" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p.14). In other words, the Ottoman conquest was not dangerous because of the wars which have been fought during its time, but through the efficiency of the imperial advancement by embedding Christian communities. This thesis, which can be also found in the work of Nicolae Iorga, in "Byzantium after Byzantium", when Romanian rulers could spiritually unify the entire Levant and Balkan space under the Orthodox umbrella, which shows that a great part of the integrity of the European civilization has its roots in the process of succession rather than in that of the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by another one, of a greater vitality: the one of the Ottoman cast. This thesis is not enough explored by Cantemir, but it is enough outlined in order to understand both the objective view if his work and the larger role the Ottoman Empire played on the stage of the European civilization: "the «pagan» Ottoman Empire was a much foreign form than the Byzantine Empire had been. In all this, what was constant was the Ancient Greece, with their local gods gathering around themselves a fundamentally free community, no matter the payments to the Turkish admiral or to the Sultan or the random brutalities of the passing officers and soldiers. More or less, the old rules of the founders, their precise recommendations, contained in documents that were not forgotten, those were true fundamental laws for a life style which remained completely outside a foreign state, especially regarding religious issues." (Iorga 1972 [1934], p. 64). "All over the place, in the Empire that had such a strong legacy and resemblance of what it had been before, new churches kept rising, despite a so-called hindrance coming from the Turks, and even the monasteries were freely restored." (idem, p. 70).
Regarding the use of power through force (hard-power), Cantemir underlines few aspects, demonstrating once again that he was a connoisseur of military tactics and strategies. In the first category, he identified the race/run attack (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 69 (40, §3) and passim), which represents the concentration in force, rapid exploitation of breaches, and the consolidation in depth of the territory. Another important element, connected to the projection of power, is the "mastering of the seas" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 73 (47, §16)), and, very important, the control over the Danube river - more precisely, forbidding any Romanian access to its military and commercial organization ((idem, p. 80, (60, §9)).
The Decline of the Empire begins with the Erosion of its SoftPower (Inner Cohesion)
The second siege over Vienna (1683) represents the beginning of the Ottoman decline. Cantemir shows that the unfavorable implications of the abortive Vienna attack, considered to be the Gordian point of the Western Christianity, were soon to trigger a chain reaction among the great European powers to which the weakened Ottoman Empire could not stand tall anymore (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 360 (315, §16 and passim)). In this situation we can find the discordance between the vitality of a society and the political interests. The thesis according to which politics outperforms vitality was submitted by Iorga 225 years after Cantemir, in "Borders and National Spaces". Iorga showed that "if the society does not help, any state is useless" (Iorga 1996 [1938], p.17). It seems like this was also the case at Vienna, in the unfortunate year 1683 - the Ottoman Empire reaches a point in which the vitality of its society is leftbehind by the political projects of the ruling class: not only that Vienna not burn down, but the Ottoman retreat propagated a shock wave that Cantemir will call "decreases". The vitality, as it is shown by Iorga, is expressed through the "elasticity" of the adaptation to the greatest of the challenges, for which the elite is the first to be held responsible. Therefore, the vitality is the expression of a nation's excellence and this is that key-ingredient which had been irresponsibly wasted during the Vienna Siege. Not random at all, and as a proof that the effort was too high even for the elite divisions of the army, the Great Vizier tries to substitute the Ottoman idea as a motivation for conquest with "mountains of gold" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 345 (285, §60)). The effect on the internal coherence of the army and later on the whole Ottoman society is devastating: "the courage of the bravest soldiers had been taken away by Vizier's obstinacy, just like it took away the success of the siege, so they did not care anymore what was useful for their task, but, instead, would blindly obey the orders, as if they all were just mercenaries" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 349 (293, §70)). The janissaries and their subordinates, the most feared military force of the continent, the guarantors of the Ottoman Court and, therefore, of the imperial family, turned into a bunch of mercenaries because they did not care anymore. How did they end up this way? Through the decadence of the internal power structure. Soft-power, before being considered as the international order distributed through attraction, means the capacity of the empire to stand for itself, using its own attraction energy between its constituents. The crumbling of the administration's ethos to a financial matter, the possibility to buy a leading position, the transformation of politics into an abstract game of power rivalries, marked, as we may notice, the beginning of the decline. Vienna was the moment in which the elements of the power of interests did not cope anymore.
The reification of the administration, its reduction to games of power, has as a moral axis the greed of the officials and this, after a while, produces transformations in the army behavior, contributing to its "havoc" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 348 (291, §68)). From a military thinking standpoint, the actions become "careless" and, although the empire still had great resources, the army faced many logistic difficulties which ultimately had as a consequence the loss of a huge battle. The empire facing dissolution is caught between the dictatorship of the unqualified masses, the absent elite and the rising aggressiveness of other European empires willing to take over the Danube and the Mediterranean Sea. L'Esprit de corps of the army is degrading day by day, while the janissaries' riots bedevil the imperial hierarchy, taking down Viziers and even Sultans, liquidating more or less corrupt officials. The state of the Empire after the retreat from Vienna is described by Cantemir through Mehmed IV's words, the first in the series of systemic decrease of the Empire: "After all, how dare you blame on me, the innocent, the disaster which was only possible due to the negligence of the soldiers and due to the laziness of their commanders, as long as you do not want to take full responsibility for this disaster... Doubtless, not my crimes, but those of the people upset God..." (idem, p. 394, (381, §193), emphasis added). What the Sultan seems to forget to confess about is still noted by Cantemir: during the harsh times of his armies' campaigns he was always...hunting, marking the separation between elites and masses as the beginning of the imperial collapse (idem, p.356 (360, §90)).
A New Empire: The Czarist Empire
In the end of his work, Cantemir draws attention upon a new imperial species, the Czarist Empire. Unlike the Ottoman Empire shaped around the idea of ottoman family, this new Empire stands on a more abstract idea. It is a first political form of imperium (imposing power) organized around an ideology: "the universal monarchy". The Ottomans acknowledge this and, even more interesting - otherwise, we would not have found out ourselves, Cantemir realizes, when he offers us the testimony of the first sultan to have faced Peter the Great's Alexandrine claims: "that enemy (the Czar), cannot change his thought towards goodwill... I easily realize that he, as the second Alexander the Great, aspires to the monarchy of the entire world" (Cantemir 2012 [1714-1716], p. 467, 522, §22).
It is clear now that the Romanian ruler had the necessary cognitive apparatus through which he had been able to pick up the observation of Ahmed III, the one who hoped to stop the Russian expansion, including through the coronation of Cantemir.
Our history proved that Cantemir's choice, "to suffer for the name of Christ", choosing to be on the Russian side of the world, has actually been a part of a completely new historical cycle, with which we are still trying to cope.
Dimitrie Cantemir's Theological preoccupations and ecclesiastical relations
Dimitrie Cantemir can be rightfully numbered among the other contemporary Romanian scholars like Peter Mogilas and Nicholas Milescu that developed part of their activity in Russia. As the two aforementioned authors, he had diverse intellectual preoccupations. One of them was theology. His first contact with the elevated study of theology was through his first professor. Constantine Cantemir, Dimitrie's father and waywode of Moldavia brought in 1688 for the education of his son, who apparently had intellectual appetencies, a scholar priest and monk from Crete called Jeremiah Cacavela, trained in the renowned western university centres of Oxford, Leipzig, Vienna and Venice.
Between 1689 and 1691 he completes his studies in Constantinople at the Greek Academy from Phanar. He is numbered thus among the students of the "great patriarchal school" of Constantinople where he had the chance to be modelled by professors that studied in the West, especially in Padova (Pãcurariu 1994).
In 1698, in Iasi, he printed his first work entitled The Divan or the Wise Man's Parley with the World or the Judgment of the Soul with the Body. It represents a synthesis of his vision on human existence composed in the form of a controversy between a Wise Man and the World and written as a dialogue with classical and ancient Christian precedence. It is a good introduction in the moral education of Eastern Christianity placed under the encompassing umbrella of the dialogue between the man and the world, spirit and matter, sin and virtue, a theme which is actually a common place of Christian literature starting with St. Paul and continuing with the great authors of the patristic age. The theme of the judgement between the body and the soul is common in both western and eastern middle-age patristic authors like Gregory of Nazianz, Boethius, Ephrem the Syrian, Bernard of Clairvaux, Hildebert, Peyre d'Aulvergne or Jacopone da Todi. (Cândea 1969).
Cândea (1969) considers Dimitrie Cantemir's approach as being part of the tendencies that the literate south-eastern Europe's lay-men manifested: the evolution towards a rational-religious thought, opposable to the previous solely religious thought. More than that, the Orthodox Church as a whole is representing an anti-rational position, Cantemir adding his contribution to the unification process between tradition (Orthodoxy) and rationalism. This process was blocked by the Orthodox Church starting with the schism of 1054 in an attempt to preserve the "oriental doctrine". Cantemir's Wise Man is still Christian but untied by the "patristic mystic". He is "evolved" towards protestant rationalism (pp. XLVIII-XLIX). He remains orthodox but within the limits of a "formal Orthodoxy" because he abandons "the severe positions of patristic, of mystical theology". Cantemir ignored the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Palamas 'or the other representatives of orthodoxy in its radical expression' (Cândea 1969, p. LIV).
The steps towards positioning Dimitrie Cantemir in the avant-garde of humanistic thought, precisely in the process of the "laicization of southeast- European thought" (Cândea 1969, p. XII) which was penetrating the Romanian principalities, determines V. Cândea to operate the artificial distinction between tradition and reason, between rationalism and the "patristic mystic" of "radical Orthodoxy", transforming Cantemir in an Enlightener of a paralysed Church in its anti-rational fight to preserve the 'oriental' doctrine.
This is not the place to develop the counter-argument. We refrain to just saying that a fundamental distinction is lacking: the distinction between the 'mystic' theology of the philokalic fathers and the speculative theology of Greek patristic. It is exactly that the mentioned fathers, the socalled representatives of "radical Orthodoxy" make the same opening steps towards the cultural and philosophical categories of their age: Dyonisius - neo-platonism; Gregory of Nyssa - develops in the Christianised categories of classical philosophy a theological system about which antirationalism counts as the last thing that could be imputed; Gregory Palamas - involved in highly theoretical and philosophical disputations against the Thomist method of Varlaam of Calabria etc. Thus, the Cantemirian endeavour has antecedents in the Orthodoxy itself which he tries to integrate in his existential system of thought. To logic and reason appealed the Christian apologists, the early Christian anonymous authors as the author of the epistle to Diognetus, the Alexandrian, Roman or Antiochian theologians and around these two concepts developed the great Christological controversies that encompassed and divided empires. In trying to structure his theses, Dimitrie Cantemir appeals as well to reason and logic. The arguments are backed up by quotes from most varied sources, indicating on the one hand his vast theological and philosophical culture, and on the other hand his synthesis and integration abilities. Thus the whole philosophical and theological construct of The Divan is backed up with varied quotes: from the Old and the New Testament; patristic sources as the Pearls of Wisdom of St. John Chrysostom; The Ladder of St. John Climakos; The Lives and Deeds of Saints written by the Metropolitan Dosoftei; liturgical fragments from the Menaia; The lives of Saint Varlaam and Joasaph the famous novel attributed to St. John Damascene, a Christianised version of the life of Buddha; Greek and Roman classical authors; oriental poetry and wisdom literature and a liberal protestant work of Andrea Wissowatius Stimuli virtutum ac fraena peccatorum etc.
Among other works that could have inspired Cantemir there is the Dioptra of Phillip Monotropos, and a work about the judgement of the soul with the body attributed to Gregory Palamas the archbishop of Thessalonica, but pertaining to Michail Choniates (Cândea 1969).
Cantemir is placed "between Christian morals and philosophical ethics" (Pacurariu 1994, p. 202). The argument is rather rational and philosophical, and the author is not attracted by eremitism or withdrawal from this world but, on the contrary, he emphasises involvement in this world. "The Divan can be considered a work of Christian morals and Romanian spirituality" (Pacurariu 1994, p. 202).
His theological and philosophical preoccupations are further developed in subsequent works. The next one on ethics and metaphysics appeared in 1700 in Constantinople and it is called Sacrosanctae scientiae indepingibilis imago (The Image of the Sacred Science that Cannot Be Depicted). He approached theological and philosophical themes as the origin of the world, epistemology, the problem of time, of free-will and predestination. 'All the problems that he approaches are resolved in the spirit of Christian Doctrine' (Pacurariu 1994, p. 203).
An important work that can shed light on Cantemir's orthodoxy as being "formal", like Cândea supposes, or not, is a late book called Loca Obscura in Catechisi, quae ab anonyme authore slaveno idiomate edita et Pervoe ucenie otrokom intitulata est, dilucidata autore Demetrio Cantemirio (Obscure Places in the printed Slavonic Catechism by an Anonymous Author under the Title The First Lessons for Children, explained by the Author Dimitrie Cantemir). This work was roused by the appearance of a unsigned printed children's Catechism, belonging to Feofan Prokopovitch the bishop of Pskov and the future archbishop of Novgorod (three editions of this Catechism were printed also in Râmnic in 1726, 1727 and 1734) (Pacurariu 1994)). It contained a lot of doctrinal and methodological errors of protestant influence. Cantemir's work explained the doctrinal errors, being thus among the few theologians that reacted to the new theological method of western influence that entered eastern theology through the so-called "confessions of faith" (of Mitrophan Kritopoulos, Peter Moghilas, Dositheos of Jerusalem and Cyril Lukaris).
Pismo knjazja Dimitriia Kantemira k grafu Gavriilu Golovkin (The Letter of Mr Dimitrie Cantemir to the Count Gavriil Golovkin) is an elevated essay on the conscience being one of the last written theological works. Giurescu (2007, p. 558), informs us that during the Persian expedition he also wrote a Persian Catechism.
Connected with his religious interests Cantemir published in 1722 The Book of the System or the State of Mohammedan Religion "the first work about the doctrine of another religion written by a Romanian author" (Pacurariu 1994, p. 203).
All the aforementioned theological writings give witness to his wide theological and philosophical education, mastering solid biblical, patristic, liturgical and canonical knowledge. "He stands on a defensor position of Orthodox doctrine and traditions in front of Lutheran, Calvin and Catholic teachings ... the aforementioned works place Dimitrie Cantemir among the forefathers of Romanian Orthodox theology" (Pacurariu 1994, p. 203).
His theological erudition, his doctrinal Orthodox stand, his waywodal rank placed him in the situation of developing networks with the ecclesiastical world. Even from the time when his father ruled, Moldova was visited by high prelates of the Orthodox Church like the Patriarchs Jacob and Dionysus of Constantinople, Gherasimos of Alexandria and following Chrisantos of Jerusalem (Iorga 2011, p. 83).
During his Constantinopolitan studies he meets archbishop Meletios renowned for his performances in mathematics and universal literature. He is also in friendly relations with other educated hierarchs like Calinikos the second of Constantinople, Dositheos the second Notaras of Jerusalem, the great preacher of the Constantinopolitan Church Ralachi Cariophilos.
Regarding the relations with the ecclesiastical structures from back home, they are built so to support his external policies.
In his anti-Ottoman policies he emphasized religious liberation, an aspect noticed by an anonymous chronicle writer (probably the deacon Nicolae Mustea) "and now the thing with the Russians was becoming thicker, and the people started rising with the hope that God will deliver them from the hand of the Christian law's enemy: the Turk" (Pseudo- Nicolae Muste 1874, p. 43 in Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 317)
In his attempt to move the political orientation towards Orthodox Russia, Dimitrie Cantemir understood the importance of the Orthodox Church's support, and consequently, had an ecclesiastical benevolent policy. He managed through the friendship with Chrisantos Notaras, the patriarch of Jerusalem, to recover for the country some rich monasteries like Bistrita, Tazlau and Probota formerly dedicated to the Holy Places; he relieved the paying of some taxes for villages pertaining to monasteries and also some churches; he redirects some percentage from taxation towards certain monasteries (e.g. The Holy Three Hierarchs in Iasi); makes land donations to clerics or monks (Cernavodeanu 2012).
The reason for joining Peter of Russia has the purpose of "delivering the Christian people from under the heavy Turkish yoke". Thus in the proclamation to the inhabitants of Moldova he appeals to the Metropolitan of Suceava, to the bishops, boyars and the rest of the population (Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 325). This way Dimitrie Cantemir made the Church part of his geopolitical plans understanding the structural relations that substantiate society and can contribute to its mobilisation in crucial moments like a war of deliverance from the ottoman yoke.
The same attention to the forms of social structure is represented by his efforts to diffuse social pressure. His idea of social harmony is a solution for the worrying situation of the fights between the great boyar families that unstructured society "he gave a speech to all, being good at it, saying that they should live in peace... showing the advantage of the boyar union" (Nicolae Costin 1976, p. 312 in Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 316). His attention for diffusing social pressure through easing some fiscal policies brought him a good name as the letter of Anastasios Condoidi, the Court's preacher, to Chrisantos Notaras patriarch of Jerusalem attests, Dimitrie Cantemir being the reason for which in Moldova "a new Sun of righteousness is risen" (Hurmuzaki XIV, p. 84 at Cernavodeanu 2012, p. 316).
The failure of his monarchic project through the defeat of Stanilesti was a heavy hit for Cantemir and for what could have been a hereditary monarchy based on the Christian premises of the Byzantine Theo-politics.
Cantemir remains in our memory also for the erection of some less known churches: the church of the Holy Emperors Constantine and Helen, in the courtyard of the Greek monastery of Moscow where he was buried; two churches in the villages that he owned in Russia (50 villages with 15000 people - Giurescu 2007, p. 556) - these two were made according to the plans that he himself made; he also built a monastery at Dimitrovca (Giurescu 2007, p. 161).
The role of Cantemir's personality for the social infrastructure
The concept of social infrastructure refers to "the immaterial/invisible expression specific to human communities (whether local, regional or national), that embodies an entire suite of contents and vectors that make the community network possible" (Bulumac 2013, p.31). In other words, infrastructure becomes a "critical component of the social order" that is, by definition, a cultural construct, field of activity assigned by excellence to the elite corpus. From this perspective, the discussion about the social role of the personality and, in our case, the one of Dimitrie Cantemir's, becomes vital. The constellation of personalities represents "the nodal network" of a community that distributes coherence and functionality to the social unit, on a political-administrative level as well as on the economic or socio-cultural levels (idem, p. 33).
The Weberian definition of the social order introduces an important dimension into the analysis of the social role of the personality, namely the "identifiable maxima" according to which the actor's conduct acquires the content called order (Weber 1978, p. 31). From this perspective, what is important is the "establishment of the pre-judgments, the reasoning (categories), the images (representations), and the perceptions that impact the way the social actors understand and shape the social (eco)system" (Bulumac 2013, p. 31). The personality of Dimitrie Cantemir can be analyzed precisely through the strength of these maxima, namely through "homeland" and "Christianity", dimensions confessed through his activity and by the work bequeathed. The Maxima, if calibrated in accordance to the community of language, religion and culture from which the personality is reclaiming can help not only to maintain the circulation of values, ideas, traditions, and other relevant facts, but can also provide solutions to the arisen challenges. Given the identity nature of the dimensions adopted by the Catemirian personality, one can argue that, despite some political setbacks, Dimitrie Cantemir tried incessantly to create a framework favorable for the development of the community to which he belongs, and for the recovery of its social infrastructure. And the embracement of some ultimate values by Cantemir as the homeland and the Orthodox spirituality represents the awareness of the mission that determines, at its turn, the strength of Cantemir's aspirations with collective value.
The social personality represents a central element in the Gustian paradigm of militans sociology, component of the institutionalization of a "national pedagogy" of personality's creation and formation, with principles from ethics and politics. For Dimitrie Gusti, the idea of social personality was equivalent to the one of the leader, chief, and elite. "We call this being ideal, even though it is given to man in his existential virtualities: personality. The ethical ideal is, therefore, the personality able to create cultural values that appear to us as a harmonious unity of selflove, sympathy and religiosity, with a will as wide as possible, capable to choose the highest goals and to handle the suitable means for their achievement" (Gusti 1940, p. 19).
What better example can one find than the one of Dimitrie Cantemir in terms of creating cultural values by a personality? The legacy he leftthroughout the centuries, although insufficiently recovered nowadays, represents the manifestation of a strong personal belief, which generated an entire series of original works, some of them quite controversial or written in opposing to the Western dominant paradigm, but also to some theories from the Russian space (Ciobanu 1925; see also the section above entitled Current methodology).Cantemir the Scribe understands that diplomacy and government policy must necessarily be completed with knowledge, in order to eliminate the Romanian States' dependency to the external factors, and in order to increase the degree of civilization for ordinary people. In other words, Cantemir realized that he had a mission that he tried to fully shoulder.
In order to understand the social mechanism and personality's contribution to the social and physical infrastructure of a community, we will further use a theoretical instrument, namely the ideal-type of the social personality synthesized by five defining features (Bulumac 2013).
Traian Brãileanu, one of the most neglected thinkers of the Romanian Sociology, both during the communist period and in the postrevolutionary period, outlines the theory of the great man or of the brilliant leader, noticed especially in times of crisis. Through this theory we reach the first feature of the social personality: the human society represents a mental construct put to practice by the "social artist" or by the "brilliant leader" (Brãileanu 1936), starting from the possibility and ending with its implementation in accordance to his vision. In other words, the social personality tries to reconcile the idea (vision) with a welldetermined social function, action anchored necessarily in the nostratic feeling to both sides. This is the place identified by Traian Brãileanu in his doctoral thesis (1935) as the basis of social consciousness, which makes coexistence possible, the spiritual order generated by the social consciousness with manifestation in the cultural, economical, political spaces etc. (Herseni, 1935). In Cantemir's case, the access to the vast universal culture was granted along with his departure to Constantinople, at the age of 15, and with its enrollment at the Academy of the Patriarchy, where he studies sciences such as mathematics, topography, archeology, or geography. Afterwards, he has the chance to be the representative of Antioch Cantemir (crowned on the throne of Moldavia in 1695) before the Ottoman Gate for 5 years, during which he "had refined the means of political persuasion, perfecting his knowledge of understanding the ways of access to power, and the philosophical, linguistic and artistic knowledge" (Þarãlungã 2004, p. 30). This is the beginning of Dimitrie Cantemir's cultural personality, the one that leftto the Romanian culture an entire series of precious writings. Later, after signing the alliance with Peter the Great and after losing the battle from Stãnilesti in 1711, Cantemir retreats together with the Russian armies at Moscow. "Here, in Russia, he writes his most significant works, those referring to his homeland" (Ciobanu 1925, p. 2).
The second feature of the social personality refers to the "power" that is consistent enough to rebuild or to transform the social infrastructure in times of crisis. In other words, the leader (Brãileanu 1940, pp. 25-26, 40, 102-103) is the person that chooses to answer to urgent matters of substance in the face of the national community's history. It is interesting that Brãileanu chooses to use a specific tense "to be able to..." which shows us the fact that the logic of the social infrastructure's development stands, naturally, under the sign of the complexity of social life that cannot be fully subjected to a sociological law. Urgent matters during Cantemir's time represent, on the one hand, the tangled geopolitical context, as well as a network of personal interests, which lead to the appearance of Phanariot regimes in the Romanian States. Cantemir understood the times of crisis and persisted in his desire to restore the socio-political coherence in the Romanian space. In other words, Cantemir took upon himself a hearted mission, that of looking up to a function ideal-type of the past: "the country's liberation from the Ottoman rule, its return to the prerogatives is used to have during Stephan the Great" (Þarãlungã 2004, 32).
Therefore, we have here two constitutive levels: one of the social personality, and one of the community, tied directly by the actional component determined by two ingredients: social will and (pre)vision (the third feature of a social personality). The social will represents "the essence of the social unit" (Gusti 1969, p. 27), being able to transform the settings into manifestations, hence to update the social, cultural and economic stocks of a community. On the other hand, the vision represents that mental state projected in units of time, space and causality (Bernea 2005), in which creativity/social engineering goes beyond individual intelligence. In this case, the interesting fact is that the influence of the great culture Cantemir beneficiated from did not "universalize" him. On the contrary, it determined him to develop a social will and a bold vision, directly connected to the two maxima mentioned above, homeland and Christianity. Dimitrie Cantemir starts "to dream of his reign over both Romanian states" (Þarãlungã 2004, p. 31). However, his ambition does not automatically lead to the desired result: Cantemir lost the political battle against the more experienced Romanian ruler, Constantin Brâncoveanu, a failure that he described in his Hieroglyphic History.
The fourth feature of social personality implies the initiation of a superior circuit of values, along with facilitating their internalization by the social unit. In other words, the design and the dissemination of the spiritual contents lead, by the help of the social personality, to the overflow of the crisis by strengthening the social infrastructure. In Dimitrie Cantemir's case, this feature was repeatedly congregated, but not on the political arena, where he learned defeat, but on the spiritual and cultural dimensions. Through written creation, he succeeds to influence the fate of many historical key moments, long time after his death. Such an example can be considered his volume "The Chronicle" which became the reference book for the members of the Transylvanian School in their fight for national right of Romanians. "What was lost with the sword, Dimitrie Cantemir won with the pen" (Taralunga 2004, 34).
Further, we appeal to Nichifor Crainic's theory of "the heroic man". In his opinion, the elite cannot justify its existence outside the moral criterion, a manner of thinking that is centered upon faith and love for the Other. For Crainic, the first characteristic of the heroic man is the absence of the isolated manifestation, due to the fact that he belongs to a community, and his ideal is subsumed to the collective trajectory. This is an unconditional mission, assigned by the social corpus in which the heroic man is embedded, and considered successful when the community is finally developed. "It is true that the lava expresses itself by volcanoes and the heroism embodies in the exemplary individuals of mankind; but it is not less true that the heroic spirit can become the common good of a generation or an entire nation" (Crainic 1937, p.28) - the fifth attribute of social personality. The moral criterion represented one of the pillars of strength in Cantemir's work, him being the first one who made a difference between consciousness and moral consciousness in the autochthonous moral philosophy, a difference initially enunciated in the Letter about consciousness (Dumitrescu 2002 cited in the International Conference Volume 2012, p. 95). Thus, Cantemir came to the conclusion that "in lack of education, people may acquire bad morals" (idem). In other words, the scholar, through his writings, tries to disseminate the moral criterion for the purpose of elevating the community of his origin and identity.
The main difference between the concept of elite and that of personality is given by the constant choice of the latter to tend towards the maximum fulfilment by targeting the highest values. These kinds of personalities/constellation of personalities manage to bring a socioeconomic unity in their maximum potential, both throughout life and through the legacy leftfor the community. In the case of Cantemir's personality, the legacy represents a suite of contributions, in a variety of fields: from shaping the Romanian ethnography and folklore to stating some geocultural and geopolitical theories concerning the imperial phenomenon, from the influence on a musical level to ideas of political economy, from taking upon oneself discussions on sensitive and difficult topics of theology to analyzing norms of demeanor and morals, etc. (see the Volume of the International Conference 2012). In this case, after analyzing the activity and work of Dimitrie Cantemir, a new feature of the Cantemirian personality appears, in addition to the theoretical instrument of the ideal-type (based on only 5 dimensions): its encyclopaedic dimension. This way, Cantemir is amongst the initiators of the knowledge of significant contexts, one of the scopes of the encyclopedic approach. It is what Albert Hirschman called understanding the complexity of the social reality. This is how Cantemir succeeds to understand the true moment of the Ottoman Empire's decline, to predict the appearance of the new configurations of power in Europe against the Ottoman Gate (Taralunga, 2004, p. 478) and to lead its entire activity towards including its "homeland" into those particular systems of alliances (idem, p. 32).
References
Bernea, E., (2005), Space, Time and Causality with the Romanian People, Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest.
Braileanu, T., (1936), Artists and Artisans. In Sociological Notes, April. II(1).
Braileanu, T., (1940), Sociology and the Art of Governing. In: Political Articles (2nd edition), Cartea Româneasca Publishing House, Bucharest.
Bulumac, Ovidiana, (2013), Infrastructure and Society. Theoretical Considerations and Case Study, University of Bucharest.
Cantemir, Dimitrie, 2004 [1698], The Divan or the Wise Man's Parley with the World, or The Judgement of the Soul with the Body. Litera International, Bucharest, Chisinau.
Cantemir, Dimitrie, 2012 [1714-1716], The History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Court. From the origins of the people up to our days, in three books, 1st and 2nd volume, preface Acad. Virgil Cândea, Romanian transl. and indices by Dan Slusanschi, 2nd edition revised, Paideia.
Cândea, V., (1969), "Introductory Study". In Cantemir, D. The Divan. Publishing House for Literature, Bucharest.
Cernavodeanu, P., (2012), The Cantemirians' Epoch. In The History of Romanians. (5th vol.) An Epoch of Spiritual Renewal in European Spirit (1601-1711/1716). Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest.
Ciobanu, Stefan, (1925), Dimitrie Cantemir in Russia, Memories of Literary Section, 3rd Series, 2nd vol., MEM. 5, The National Culture, Bucharest.
Crainic, N., (1937), Orthodoxy and Ethnocracy. Cugetarea Publishing House, Bucharest.
Dumitrescu, P., (2002), Studies of Romanian Philosophy, Tipo Moldova, Iasi.
Giurescu, C., (2007), The History of the Romanians (vol. III). Bic All, Bucharest.
Gusti, D., (1940), The Problem of Sociology. Three Communications. in the Annals of the Romanian Academy, The Memories of the Historic Section, 3rd series, vol. XXII, National Printing.
Gusti, D., (1969), Works, 2nd vol, Academiei R.S.R. Publishing House, Bucharest.
Herseni, T., (1935), The Social Reality. An attempt of regional ontology. The Romanian Social Institute, Bucharest.
Iorga, N., (2011), The History of the Romanian Church and of the Romanians' Religious Life (2nd vol.). Saeculum I. O, Bucharest.
Iorga, Nicolae, 1972 [1934], Bizantyum after Bizantyum, The Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest.
Iorga, Nicolae, 1996 [1938], National Borders and Spaces. The assertion of the Romanian vitality, Introductory study by Mihai Ungheanu, Porto Franco publishing House, Galati.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., "SoftPower, Hard Power and Leadership", in Harvard.edu, 27 oct. 2006, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/netgov/files/talks/docs/11_06_06_sem inar_Nye_HP_SP_Leadership.pdf
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., (2004), "The Decline of America's SoftPower", Foreign Affairs, mai-iun.
Pacurariu, M., (1994), The History of the Romanian Orthodox Church (2nd vol.), The Publishing House of the Biblic and Mission Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Bucharest.
Taralunga, Ecaterina, (2004), Dimitrie Cantemir. Contributions to A Portrait, Litera International Publishing House, Bucharest-Chisinau.
The Christian University "Dimitrie Cantemir". The volume of the International Conference "The Encyclopedic and Universal Dimension of Dimitrie Cantemir's Work, 2012, Pro Universitaria, Publishing House, supplement to Cogito Journal , no. 3/September 2012, available at the internet address http://deodc.ucdc.ro/editia2/volumul-conferintei- 6nov.final.pdf
Weber, M., (1978), Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, vol. I and II, University of California Press.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Copyright Christian University Dimitrie Cantemir, Department of Education Dec 2013
Abstract
The proposed article is a brief sociological analysis that starts with the general plan (the epoch) and reaches to the particular one (the social personality, ecclesiastical relations). In an attempt to better represent the complexity of the subject and the vitality of the Romanian space from which Cantemir is reclaimed, the speech was structured on three main axes: 1. the imperial phenomenon, 2. the personality in terms of socio-cultural construction, and 3. the ecclesiastical relations. Dimitrie Cantemir brings the first major contribution to the understanding of the imperial phenomenon, so insidious nowadays. We will try to point out some of Cantemir's contributions in this respect by setting the phenomenology of the imperial increase and decrease, starting from the volume "History of the Increases and Decreases in the Ottoman Court". In the interwar Romanian space of thinking, a new field of research was developed with effervescence, entitled the sociology of the elites. In time, it became crucial for understanding the social realities, and for the construction of the development projections. Significant contributions are those that belong to Dimitrie Gusti ("cultural personality", "social will"), Traian Braileanu ("social artist", "brilliant leader"), Traian Herseni ("spiritual order", "social consciousness"), or Nichifor Crainic ("heroic man"). The concept of cultural personality is central in the analysis of the social infrastructure within a certain area, and Cantemir's passing through the proposed theoretical filter can lead to a better clarification of the role of the personality in history and its overall impact. In order to obtain a more complete and accurate overall picture, the article will address the issue of Cantemir's ecclesiastical relations, specifically the manner in which the social and religious realities of the epoch concerned him, but also how they can emerge from the social descriptions written. The relevance of this issue is clear from the specific context of identity in which the population lived in, and from the way it was influenced by the religious institutions. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer